Posted on 08/28/2011 6:48:15 AM PDT by Nicojones
Sure got quiet in here ...
For the record:
It isn’t just Perry. Not a single Republican candidate for president seems to understand the first thing about the things I’m bringing out on this thread. Every single one of them, in one way or another, can be found in violation of the first duty associated with the oath of office: the responsibility to provide equal protection for the unalienable right to life of all.
A Resolution affirming vital existing constitutional protections for the unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from the first moment of creation until natural death.
WHEREAS, The first stated principle of the United States, in its charter, the Declaration of Independence, is the assertion of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and that they are each endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, beginning with the right to life, and that the first purpose of all government is to defend that supreme right; and
WHEREAS, The first stated purposes of We the People of the United States in our Constitution are “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”; and
WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment, imperatively requires that all persons within the jurisdictions of all the States be afforded the equal protection of the laws; and
WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, explicitly forbids the taking of the life of any innocent person; and
WHEREAS, The practices of abortion and euthanasia violate every clause of the stated purposes of the United States Constitution, and its explicit provisions; and
WHEREAS, Modern science has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the individual human person’s physical existence begins at the moment of biological inception or creation; and
WHEREAS, All executive, legislative and judicial Officers in America, at every level and in every branch, have sworn before God to support the United States Constitution as required by Article VI of that document, and have therefore, because the Constitution explicitly requires it, sworn to protect the life of every innocent person;
THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HEREBY RESOLVE that the God-given, unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from biological inception or creation to natural death, be protected everywhere within every state, territory and jurisdiction of the United States of America; that every officer of the judicial, legislative and executive departments, at every level and in every branch, is required to use all lawful means to protect every innocent life within their jurisdictions; and that we will henceforth deem failure to carry out this supreme sworn duty to be cause for removal from public office via impeachment or recall, or by statutory or electoral means, notwithstanding any law passed by any legislative body within the United States, or the decision of any court, or the decree of any executive officer, at any level of governance, to the contrary.
It's one thing he's done that has hurt the 'Rats and their rackets, and I'm in favor of it.
Keep in mind that in the Texas legislature, there are two large interest groupings: one is "Bidness" which includes the powerful insurance lobby, who go around making all sorts of cars, accessories, and drivers illegal, and would like to keep people in their houses under the bed drinking warm milk as much as possible, and the other is the trial lawyers, who have swung a big axe in Texas Democratic politics for as long as memory runneth not.
Business interests very much want the litigators bottled up, but of course at some point they might like to sue somebody themselves, so it's a balancing act.
As long as you don't need a $1,000,000 filing fee to bring a suit in equity, it would seem the angels are on the side of business interests and Rick Perry -- the Democratic lawyers have disgraced themselves over the years with vile, money-grubbing barratry and stirring up political lawsuits and prosecutions of e.g. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Tom Delay, both brought by Demolitigator "Mad Dog" Ronnie Earle of Travis County (Austin), a jurisdiction which is Texas's counterpart of Nancy Pelosi's Castro District in Gay Bay.
Perry actually got a barratry law passed this last session, and that is a very big spike in the Democrats' guns.
IMHO Perry is pro-life, but that position is an attempt on his part to "reposition" himself for a presidential run, by executing his version of a straddle.
It's his way of saying, "I don't think abortion should be part of my campaign, part of presidential politics, so if you're pro-abort, please don't vote against me on that account."
He's "reaching out" to all the Kay Bailey Hutchisons of the world, IOW, esp. those in the GOP who are turned off by Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin -- the Kathleen Parkers and Peggy Noonans of GOPdom and the Hillary supporters of gender-femdom.
Oh, it’s definitely a position that means they will never have to actually do anything about it, or take any personal responsibility. Just like Gerald R. Ford and his hacks designed it.
You say he’s “pro-life.” Would you say that a politician who said a state can deprive you of your right to keep and bear arms is “pro-self-defense”?
This is an important issue to you, so of course you want it federalized. Globalized. Universalized.
Problem is, other than the powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, all powers are retained by the States, or by the People -- as per the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
If you don't think so, then explain why murder and manslaughter should or shouldn't be federal crimes from the git, and beyond the reach of States' governments.
I say that Perry has gone on the record here and there as being "pro-life" ....... Now I say that he is attempting a straddle, softening that position for votes. "Growing", as liberals like to call it when a conservative starts to compromise himself.
What "issue" could be more important than the equal protection of the God-given, unalienable right to life? The founders of this free republic certainly didn't place anything in front of that.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
States have no legitimate power or jurisdiction to alienate the God-given right to life of the innocent. And neither the Ninth or the Tenth Amendments create any such power or jurisdiction. They couldn't possibly do so, and their words don't even come close to saying they do, either.
The Ninth Amendment says that you can't deny the people's rights just because they're not spelled out in the Constitution.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
There is no instance possible of the people not retaining the supreme right, the right to live.
Of course, the right to life of every innocent person is clearly delineated in our Constitution, in two separate Amendments:
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.""No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
But even if it wasn't, it STILL wouldn't be constitutional to alienate the unalienable right to life of any innocent person, as per the clear words of the Ninth Amendment.
The Tenth Amendment speaks of the legitimate powers of the federal and state governments, and of the people.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Again, the right to life is "unalienable." Neither the federal or state governments, nor the people, have any right or legitimate power to alienate God-given rights delegated to them. Such is outside their jurisdiction, always.
in·alien·able
adjDefinition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred
And, as per the oath required by Article VI, Section Three, ALL officers of government, at every level, in every branch, have a sworn DUTY to provide equal protection and defend every innocent life within their jurisdictions, just as the Constitution imperatively requires in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.
This is all in perfect accord with every single clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution as well, by the way:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The practices of abortion and euthanasia do violence to every single clause of that statement of purpose.
It isn't a question of what "I want."
It's a question of what the founders of this republic said:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
"All men" sounds about as "globalized" and "universalized" as anything could get.
Zippedy-do-dah. If he said he was a Buick, and he even made the announcement from the inside of a garage, would you believe him?
By the way, you didn’t answer my question:
Would you say that a politician who said a state can deprive you of your right to keep and bear arms is “pro-self-defense”?
Maybe because, under the law as it currently exists, no state CAN ban it, so Perry and like-minded pro-life activists work to save as many lives as possible while trying to change the law at the federal level? What you propose would not save one life, because federal courts would strike it down immediately. What Perry has done HAS saved lives. Now, if you were able to ask those children whose lives have been saved by laws such as passed by Texas and signed by Perry, who do you think they would side with - Perry, or with you?
And more of those children are alive because of the "halfway positions" accepted by Perry as incremental advances than are saved by all of your "pure" posturing.
People like you are more dangerous than the pro-aborts. We expect the pro-aborts to fight any effort to slow down or stop abortion. You do the same thing by claiming you want to end abortion, but then insisting that nothing other than a 100% ban on abortion can be accepted, and that anyone who accepts incremental steps to save lives is somehow a heinous pro-abort politician. If you have your way, millions more children will die by abortion than otherwise would as the world waits for your perfect solution to come about.
Perry has done everything a governor can do. As President he says he will appoint pro-life judges. My opinion is that he’d be the strongest pro-life Pres ever. With the right majority in Congress he’d be most apt to support a Human Life Amendment.
That’s how I see it anyway.
Perhaps people were waiting for your ranting posts to end first. When your political party actually manages to get one person elected to Congress then we might can start discussing how to snap our fingers in ending abortion.
Are you among those who mistakenly think that court opinions are "law"? Because in my copy of the Constitution the only ones given that power are in the legislative branch. See Article One, Section One.
"ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Morally, abortion can never be legal.
"An unjust law is no law at all." -- Augustine
Constitutionally, without cutting the foundations and the heart out of our Constitution, abortion can never be legal.
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." "No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."""We the People of the United States, in Order to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
By the way, all of the state constitutions say the same as everything above.
If it is in any sense "legal," it is only because "pro-life" Republicans are busy codifying the killing of certain disfavored classes of innocent persons. And then holding that up as some sort of "pro-life" credential to raise money and win votes.
We’ve been hearing that same “somewhere over the rainbow” nonsense for forty years.
I for one don’t believe them one bit.
If they won’t fulfill the first duty associated with their oath now, they never will.
Tell me, how many unborn children have been saved by your position so far? None. How many lives have been saved by those working to restrict abortion and to ultimately outlaw it by passing a Human Life Amendment? Thousands and thousands. Guess who I will stand with - the ones who are saving real lives today.
By the way, they’re going to kill tens of thousands more babies just this week.
How long, and how many more millions of butchered babies, are you willing to wait for them to keep their promises?
Why do you believe they will keep any promise to you when they already refuse to keep the promises they’ve made to God when they took the oath?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.